The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

So the consensus across multiple forums and the MLS subreddit is that USSF needs to clean house, and that the way players are developed needs to be completely overhauled.

Gulati - gone.
Arena - gone.

MLS, USL, USL-D3, PDL all need to work better together in creating development opportunities for all American players. The pay to play system is currently severely holding up US soccer from taking the next step.

These are the things I keep seeing. None seem overly optimistic that those development changes are on the horizon however.

(10-11-2017 01:17 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Based on the title of the thread I thought this was going to be about the WWI Centennial Silver Dollar or something.

That was out of left field

Why is the so called pay for play bad for men, but the women excel?

(10-11-2017 09:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why is the so called pay for play bad for men, but the women excel?

That's easy. Title IX put us way ahead of the curve in woman's soccer. The first woman's World Cup was held in 1991 and only has 12 teams. Woman's soccer was banned in England until 1971.

Things are changing, and other countries have created some strong programs, but the University system is still a boon to US Soccer. There are no strong professional leagues for woman like there are men, so playing in the US system gives our woman more touches.

That is changing, and more countries are setting up leagues and developing better talent.

I have been using Ajax as an example in my posts. They boast one of the most successful academies in the world, and unless things have changed in the past couple years they do not sponsor woman's soccer.

Meanwhile millions of American girls continue to play the game.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-12-2017 05:38 AM)Banter Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why is the so called pay for play bad for men, but the women excel?

That's easy. Title IX put us way ahead of the curve in woman's soccer. The first woman's World Cup was held in 1991 and only has 12 teams. Woman's soccer was banned in England until 1971.

Things are changing, and other countries have created some strong programs, but the University system is still a boon to US Soccer. There are no strong professional leagues for woman like there are men, so playing in the US system gives our woman more touches.

That is changing, and more countries are setting up leagues and developing better talent.

I have been using Ajax as an example in my posts. They boast one of the most successful academies in the world, and unless things have changed in the past couple years they do not sponsor woman's soccer.

Meanwhile millions of American girls continue to play the game.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using CSNbbs mobile app

So overall the USA has supported women's sports much more, and early on, than other countries. Baseball and Basketball are pay for play also, lots of travelling and expenses also, yes?

(10-12-2017 07:25 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 05:38 AM)Banter Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why is the so called pay for play bad for men, but the women excel?

That's easy. Title IX put us way ahead of the curve in woman's soccer. The first woman's World Cup was held in 1991 and only has 12 teams. Woman's soccer was banned in England until 1971.

Things are changing, and other countries have created some strong programs, but the University system is still a boon to US Soccer. There are no strong professional leagues for woman like there are men, so playing in the US system gives our woman more touches.

That is changing, and more countries are setting up leagues and developing better talent.

I have been using Ajax as an example in my posts. They boast one of the most successful academies in the world, and unless things have changed in the past couple years they do not sponsor woman's soccer.

Meanwhile millions of American girls continue to play the game.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using CSNbbs mobile app

So overall the USA has supported women's sports much more, and early on, than other countries. Baseball and Basketball are pay for play also, lots of travelling and expenses also, yes?

Yes, but as with women's soccer, we are really the only countries who supported those sports until recently. Oddly enough, the European basketball teams are normally parts of athletic clubs that also include soccer teams and use similar youth development systems (FC Barcelona is the clearest example of this), and as you can see, there are more and more young Europeans being drafted year to year.

Women's soccer is an anomaly specifically due to what was mentioned earlier. Up until the late 90's, the only countries that sponsored and fully supported women's soccer in any way were the Scandinavian countries, Germany, and the US. SO instead of being 50 years behind the curve as we are with the men's side, we are actually about 15-20 ahead of the curve on the women's side, and it is becoming clear that the other countries are catching up. Look at Japan, Brazil, the Latin American countries, the way the EURO was held, the fact that more and more American women are heading to Europe now too...hell, in the last year we've lost to Australia, England, and France. The latter two didn't even qualify for the first women's world cup in 1991 and France's team wasn't truly "organized" until the late 90's.

(10-12-2017 07:25 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 05:38 AM)Banter Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why is the so called pay for play bad for men, but the women excel?

That's easy. Title IX put us way ahead of the curve in woman's soccer. The first woman's World Cup was held in 1991 and only has 12 teams. Woman's soccer was banned in England until 1971.

Things are changing, and other countries have created some strong programs, but the University system is still a boon to US Soccer. There are no strong professional leagues for woman like there are men, so playing in the US system gives our woman more touches.

That is changing, and more countries are setting up leagues and developing better talent.

I have been using Ajax as an example in my posts. They boast one of the most successful academies in the world, and unless things have changed in the past couple years they do not sponsor woman's soccer.

Meanwhile millions of American girls continue to play the game.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using CSNbbs mobile app

So overall the USA has supported women's sports much more, and early on, than other countries. Baseball and Basketball are pay for play also, lots of travelling and expenses also, yes?

I am not as familiar with the landscape of some of the other sports as I am Soccer and Football, but it is getting to a point where all sports are becoming pay to play, and the more exposure/training/camps you can pay for the greater your chance at success at said sport.

Baseball: This sport has been pay to play for awhile, and I think that in part has led to the sport becoming less popular with the African American community. This has been a topic discussed for awhile as the % of AA in baseball have been dropping, and as of 2017 AA's made up 7.7% of the league. Kids in the cities are not playing/watching baseball like they used to. Part of that is the meteoric rise of the NBA, and I would guess another part is the cost to play the game at a high level.

Basketball is a tiny bit different. The one thing about basketball ( and football to some degree) is that size can't be taught. Basketball is also becoming a pay to play sport with all the camps, and AAU type teams. I do think (along with football) that camps increase your odds, and talent, but standing out on a high school team can still get you to the next level.

The real difference here is that coaching for baseball, and basketball is better. Soccer is being taught by parents, and in most cases people who also have other jobs. Kids families are forced to pay a good amount each year for travel teams, where in Europe talented kids are identified by local clubs and train with highly skilled coaches, former players, and former international players from the age of 8/9- 18 at virtually no cost. The club does not make families pay, because they believe these kids will pay for themselves when they either become a star and sell tickets/jerseys, or when they sell their rights for 30 million euros.

Not everyone makes it through, and not everyone becomes a star, but many youth academy products are sold for hundreds of thousands to millions of euros to smaller clubs justifying the effort these clubs put in to train them. US soccer players just don't get the touches or coaching that players in the rest of the world do.

Quick anecdotal story here. I have a good friend who grew up playing soccer in Cleveland, and did a bit of travel but he knew soccer was never a future for him, but he was often left off the varsity team in high school (a prominent Cleveland catholic school) for Freshman who were on the head coaches travel team. Not because of talent, but because they played for the coach. I assume the same also happens in baseball and basketball.

"In America, with its wide-open spaces and wide-open possibilities, we celebrate the “self-made athlete,” honor effort and luck and let children seek their own course for as long as they can — even when that means living with dreams that are unattainable and always were. The Dutch live in a cramped, soggy nation made possible only because they mastered the art of redirecting water. They are engineers with creative souls, experts at systems, infrastructure and putting scant resources to their best use. The construction of soccer players is another problem to be solved, and it’s one they undertake with a characteristic lack of sentiment or illusion."

(10-12-2017 08:02 AM)Banter Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 07:25 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 05:38 AM)Banter Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 09:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why is the so called pay for play bad for men, but the women excel?

That's easy. Title IX put us way ahead of the curve in woman's soccer. The first woman's World Cup was held in 1991 and only has 12 teams. Woman's soccer was banned in England until 1971.

Things are changing, and other countries have created some strong programs, but the University system is still a boon to US Soccer. There are no strong professional leagues for woman like there are men, so playing in the US system gives our woman more touches.

That is changing, and more countries are setting up leagues and developing better talent.

I have been using Ajax as an example in my posts. They boast one of the most successful academies in the world, and unless things have changed in the past couple years they do not sponsor woman's soccer.

Meanwhile millions of American girls continue to play the game.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using CSNbbs mobile app

So overall the USA has supported women's sports much more, and early on, than other countries. Baseball and Basketball are pay for play also, lots of travelling and expenses also, yes?

I am not as familiar with the landscape of some of the other sports as I am Soccer and Football, but it is getting to a point where all sports are becoming pay to play, and the more exposure/training/camps you can pay for the greater your chance at success at said sport.

Baseball: This sport has been pay to play for awhile, and I think that in part has led to the sport becoming less popular with the African American community. This has been a topic discussed for awhile as the % of AA in baseball have been dropping, and as of 2017 AA's made up 7.7% of the league. Kids in the cities are not playing/watching baseball like they used to. Part of that is the meteoric rise of the NBA, and I would guess another part is the cost to play the game at a high level.

Basketball is a tiny bit different. The one thing about basketball ( and football to some degree) is that size can't be taught. Basketball is also becoming a pay to play sport with all the camps, and AAU type teams. I do think (along with football) that camps increase your odds, and talent, but standing out on a high school team can still get you to the next level.

The real difference here is that coaching for baseball, and basketball is better. Soccer is being taught by parents, and in most cases people who also have other jobs. Kids families are forced to pay a good amount each year for travel teams, where in Europe talented kids are identified by local clubs and train with highly skilled coaches, former players, and former international players from the age of 8/9- 18 at virtually no cost. The club does not make families pay, because they believe these kids will pay for themselves when they either become a star and sell tickets/jerseys, or when they sell their rights for 30 million euros.

Not everyone makes it through, and not everyone becomes a star, but many youth academy products are sold for hundreds of thousands to millions of euros to smaller clubs justifying the effort these clubs put in to train them. US soccer players just don't get the touches or coaching that players in the rest of the world do.

Quick anecdotal story here. I have a good friend who grew up playing soccer in Cleveland, and did a bit of travel but he knew soccer was never a future for him, but he was often left off the varsity team in high school (a prominent Cleveland catholic school) for Freshman who were on the head coaches travel team. Not because of talent, but because they played for the coach. I assume the same also happens in baseball and basketball.

"In America, with its wide-open spaces and wide-open possibilities, we celebrate the “self-made athlete,” honor effort and luck and let children seek their own course for as long as they can — even when that means living with dreams that are unattainable and always were. The Dutch live in a cramped, soggy nation made possible only because they mastered the art of redirecting water. They are engineers with creative souls, experts at systems, infrastructure and putting scant resources to their best use. The construction of soccer players is another problem to be solved, and it’s one they undertake with a characteristic lack of sentiment or illusion."

Most Black Americans reside in the Suburbs/Metro areas now than city hoods and especially inner city areas, some exceptions of course. The best explanation for baseball that I heard came from the guy at Moeller HS, Cameron. He was the baseball coach there for 30 some years.

He said back in the day dam near the entire Freshman class would come out for baseball and try to make the team, it was that popular. By the early 90's Michael Jordan was so popular that the number coming out for baseball receded dramatically.
Mostly white kids also. He called it the Michael Jordan effect. Similar impact on black kids also. There were plenty of black stars in MLB (Non Dominican) back then.

It would be interesting to know the background of black baseball MLB players, from prior eras, where they mostly Southern smaller town rural Hank Aaron/Bo Jackson , or urban like Dave Parker/Leon Durhram/Eric Davis.

It does seem like Baseball, Soccer, and Basketball all have similar costs, travel expenses though. I guess donations, or team sponsors could offset the cost for kids with not much money. Last summer I had a long conversation about this with a coach for a 16-17 year old team playing in Murray Ky. Some of the parents pitch in for the poorer kids. The opposite of that might be the sophistication of the Midland program.